IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
R.S.A. No. 3381 of 2008
Date of decision: 14-1-2009
Santosh Kumari ... Appellant
versus
State of Haryana & others ... Respondents
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR
Present: Mr. Vivek Lamba, Advocate,
for the appellant.
...
ARVIND KUMAR, J:
This is plaintiff’s second appeal directed against the
judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby her suit for declaration
and mandatory injunction has been dismissed.
As per case set out by the plaintiff, in her plaint, she had
got herself registered with the Employment Exchange, Bhiwani. Similarly,
defendant No.6, namely, Santosh Devi daughter of Rattan Singh, belonging
to her village, was also enrolled with the Employment Exchange.
Thereafter, Defendant No.2-District Education Officer, Bhiwani, called for
the names of candidates for filling up 24 vacancies of S.S. Teachers to the
Divisional Employment Exchange,Bhiwani. Out of these posts, five posts
were reserved for Scheduled Caste, 5 posts for Backward class while rest of
the 14 posts were meant for unreserved category. The case of the plaintiff
was that she though applied for the post but was never called for interview
and instead, defendant No.6 Santosh Devi daughter of Rattan Singh, whose
name and father’s name are synonymous, appeared before the Interview
Board in a fraudulent manner and got herself employed as S.S. Teacher in
Government High School, Imlota, Tehsil Dadri and as such, now she is
entitled to be appointed as S.S. Teacher with effect from 22.9.1995. The
Courts below on appreciation of the evidence adduced on record have found
that notice was sent to her but she did not appear on 22.9.1995 and was
absent and a person cannot be appointed in absentia. It has also been found
that defendant No.6, Santosh Devi who was selected, was found in the
R.S.A. No. 3381 of 2008 -2-
unreserved category whereas her name(plaintiff’s name) was sponsored
against reserved vacancy for backward class. There was no occasion for
committing such a mistake. It has further been found by the Courts below
that subsequently also, 14 vacancies of S.S. Teachers were notified, for
which interview was conducted on 3.1.1996 and 4.1.1996 by the Interview
Committee and plaintiff had also appeared in the interview for the post of
S.S. Teacher on 4.1.1996 but was not selected as she had not come in the
merit list of the selected candidates. Even other wise, defendant No.6 was
found to be possessed of higher qualification than the plaintiff. Nothing
has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below
suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law,
much less substantial, arises in the present appeal.
Dismissed.
( ARVIND KUMAR )
January 14, 2009 JUDGE
JS
Defendant No.2-District Education Officer, Bhiwani,
demanded the names of candidates for 24 vacancies of S.S. Teachers of
Divisional Employment Exchange,Bhiwani. Out of these posts, five posts
were reserved for Scheduled Caste, 5 posts for Backward class whereas rest
of the 14 were for unreserved category. The case of the plaintiff was that
she though applied for the post but was never called for interview and
instead, defendant No.6 Santosh daughter of Rattan Singh, whose name and
father’s name are synonymous, appeared before the Interview Board in a
fraudulent manner and got herself employed as S.S. Teacher in School,
Tehsil Dadri and as such, now she is entitled to be appointed as S.S.
Teacher with effect from 22.9.1995. The Courts below on appreciation of
the evidence adduced on record have found that notice was sent to her but
she did not appear on 22.9.1995 and was absent and a person cannot be
appointed in absentia. It has also been found that defendant Santosh Devi
who was selected, was found in the unreserved category whereas her name
(plaintiff’s name) was sponsored against reserved vacancy for backward
classes. There was no occasion for committing such a mistake. It has
further been found by the Courts below that subsequently also, 14 vacancies
of S.S. Teachers were notified, for which interview was conducted on
3.1.1996 and 4.1.1996 by the Interview Committee and plaintiff had
appeared in the interview for the post of S.S. Teacher on 4.1.1996 but was
not selected as she had not come in the merit list of the selected candidates.